Beauty In Evolution?

[JerryL]

Objectively it is a physiological response that can be tested and measured.

Yes, you can objectively measure a given individual's response to given stimuli at a given point. That does not get us to objective beauty. For anythign to be objective, it must exist consistantly outside of the perception of the viewer.

While my reaction at a given moment is, itself, objective; the person's beauty (what are you defining "beauty" as anyway) is not (as I cannot get a consistant measure).

Like I said, objectively it is a physiological response.

No. A physiological condition / action is an objective event. We can all look at the same scans of the brain and see the same thing. It really happened regardless of observer.

This does not mean that what he was looking at was objectively beautiful, regardless of the observer. All you've established is that there was a reaction. Notice how you can't answer any of my "what's more beautiful" questions.

Are we born with a beauty detector? Three-month-old babies stare longer at faces that adults rate as beautiful than they do at faces adults deem unattractive.

Which does nothing to esablish it as objective. Of course individuals find some things more appealing than others, and of course there are trends. Some of us like brocolli and some of us dont, but pretty much all of us dislike laundry detergent. (because the ones that liked the tastes in laundry detergent died). This does not mean that taste "good vs bad" is suddenly objective.

Your "if we can measure the response, it's objective" stance makes the word meaningless (as everything that can be concived suddenly becomes objective, and nothing at all is subjective).

Beauty is something that we subjectively experience, response is objective and fully observable. Responses can be observed and tested, in different ways. That includes surveys or even fMRIs. You said it was not testable, simply because it is subjective.

You are not testing for beauty, you are testing for a person's reaction. If it were a test for beauty, it would be reproduceable for the same results.

Again I ask, who is more beautiful, skinny women or rotund women?

Show me a test that has failed because beauty is subjective, rendering it completely untestable.

Show me a test for beauty and I'll show you how it's failed (or, in the above case, why it doesn't test beauty)

 

[JerryL]

Objective: of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.

Seriously... look at what the owrd means.

Is a snake "beautiful" or not? If you have to appeal to someone's brainwaves, you are not answering independant of the observer (you are not giving an objective answer to the question asked).

 

[Cynic]

Objective: of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.

Seriously... look at what the owrd means.

Is a snake "beautiful" or not? If you have to appeal to someone's brainwaves, you are not answering independant of the observer (you are not giving an objective answer to the question asked).

(just as a reminder) I think you forgot to post the source of your definition.

What I mean by objective is physical, material, tangible. What I mean by subjective is experiences from the experiencers mind. Beauty is an subjective experience, but it can be observed or measured as it a phsyiological response that occurs from stimulia that is being percieved.

I do see what you are saying. Beauty is a subjective experience. The statement just didn't seem right to me because I know such things are being tested in current research.
A response is not measured by brainwaves. We can take a person's brain and see which areas of the brain are activated to a stimulai through an fMRI. The stimulai that causes the response, and the response in the brain can be observed. The stimulai, or the things that people find beautiful can be analyzed, and we can try and research as to why the brain responds to things we find beautiful.

No. A physiological condition / action is an objective event.

Which was what I was saying.

We can all look at the same scans of the brain and see the same thing. It really happened regardless of observer.

This does not mean that what he was looking at was objectively beautiful, regardless of the observer. All you've established is that there was a reaction. Notice how you can't answer any of my "what's more beautiful" questions.

Well, of course not. Beauty is subjective, but objectively it is a physiological response.

Which does nothing to esablish it as objective. Of course individuals find some things more appealing than others, and of course there are trends. Some of us like brocolli and some of us dont, but pretty much all of us dislike laundry detergent. (because the ones that liked the tastes in laundry detergent died). This does not mean that taste "good vs bad" is suddenly objective.

Your "if we can measure the response, it's objective" stance makes the word meaningless (as everything that can be concived suddenly becomes objective, and nothing at all is subjective).

My point of this was not to prove that it is objective. It was to show that it is still testable, even if it is subjective, which in a previous statement, you said that it is untestable because it is subjective.

You are not testing for beauty, you are testing for a person's reaction. If it were a test for beauty, it would be reproduceable for the same results.

Again I ask, who is more beautiful, skinny women or rotund women?

When we find beauty, it is a phsyiological reaction in the brain. Our brain has evolved to respond this way to certain stimulai. It is itself, a reaction.

But like I said earlier, I think I see what you are trying to say. But it's still measurable or testable in certain ways.

 

[JerryL]

But like I said earlier, I think I see what you are trying to say. But it's still measurable or testable in certain ways.

I think I understand your position as well. I think we could likey come to a consensus eventually, based on us using several of these words differently, but I'm not sure it's enough at odds to put in the time for either of us.

The short version, I don't think that measuring a response to a subjective experience is measuring the stimuli of the experience itself.

It would be like measuring pain-responses to an electrode. We have an objective charge, and an objectively measured signil, and can make objective measurements of the response of the subject... but the "pain" is only a perception, how the mind takes the stimuli and processes it. The signil was objective, as was the reaction, but not the experience.

 

[Cynic]

I think I understand your position as well. I think we could likey come to a consensus eventually, based on us using several of these words differently, but I'm not sure it's enough at odds to put in the time for either of us.

We're probably saying some of the same things, theres semantical differences in our terminology.

The short version, I don't think that measuring a response to a subjective experience is measuring the stimuli of the experience itself.

Well, it definitely doesn't represent the totality of what beauty is. Our response has everything to do with the stimulai causing it, but It also has to do with a lot of other things as well.

It would be like measuring pain-responses to an electrode. We have an objective charge, and an objectively measured signil, and can make objective measurements of the response of the subject... but the "pain" is only a perception, how the mind takes the stimuli and processes it. The signil was objective, as was the reaction, but not the experience.

Well, but the painful experience itself was due to a physiological response in the brain and the nervous system. It's a sensory experience which triggers an emotional reponse --in which our brains evolved to respond this way as it is significant for our survival. If your nervous system was defective to an extent, you would no longer experience pain, and supposedly if you removed the area of the brain that creates pain, you would no longer experience pain either. Conscious experience itself has yet to be explained, and how beauty is experienced on that level, I have no clue. And since things such as beauty are personal and varies among individuals, there is some sort of unconsistency with what people respond to... I am still trying to understand your arguement. I see that there is a difference in how we think about the subject.

I think you provide good points, and I would frubal you for a good discussion, but I have to spread some more karma first.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Is it really comforting to believe that a sentient being "designed" parasitic wasps to eat aphids alive from the inside, bird-eating spiders to inject their victims with flesh-disintigrating venom, saltwater crocodiles to grab and drown baby antelope, heyenas to kill their prey excruciatingly slowly? Personally, I think it makes more sense that these things are the result of unthinking--yet still awe-inspiring--natural processes, which have no knowledge or understanding of the immense suffering they cause.

MS, in the world of a Methodological Naturalist there is no room for what you just said. Beauty is not something you can test or even define. This is why I am baffled as to why you and any other non-theist would conclude such a thing.

Even if the conclusion said most everybody seems to think it's beautiful, but we can't do anything with a subjective thought.

I don't understand why you've said this. It has no relevance to what's being argued... and is quite the strawman.

I only say this because I want to hear a reply to Spink's philosophical statement. Not whether or not he should have made the statement in the first place.

Thank you, meogi. I couldn't have said it better. I too would like to see Victor's response to the question I posed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I hate to be a nudge, but folks should really take the time to read Ursula Goodenough's Sacred Depths of Nature.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't understand why you've said this. It has no relevance to what's being argued... and is quite the strawman.

I only say this because I want to hear a reply to Spink's philosophical statement. Not whether or not he should have made the statement in the first place.

I think you guys pretty much know I have no answer for that.
Nevertheless you seemed to have proved my point a bit more. In a world of insects that you discribed, I struggle in seeing meaning to beauty. That would be the last thing nature would care to oblige.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think you guys pretty much know I have no answer for that.

Perhaps because that was empty rhetoric.

... I struggle in seeing meaning to beauty.

Exactly!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Perhaps because that was empty rhetoric.

Are you referring to my question, "Is it really comforting to believe that a sentient being "designed" parasitic wasps to eat aphids alive from the inside, bird-eating spiders to inject their victims with flesh-disintigrating venom, saltwater crocodiles to grab and drown baby antelope, heyenas to kill their prey excruciatingly slowly?" I think my question raises a good point, and I asked it with sincerity.

 

[Quiddity]

Perhaps because that was empty rhetoric.
Exactly!

I gotta give it to you Deut. At least your consistant...:clap

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I gotta give it to you Deut.

What?? :biglaugh:

*edit: I'm sorry, but I had to.....*

 

[Quiddity]

What?? :biglaugh:

*edit: I'm sorry, but I had to.....*

:tsk:

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Perhaps because that was empty rhetoric.
Exactly!

I don't agree with you Deut. I was only pointing that out from what I understood to be the atheistic perspective. Something in which in you seem to display the best.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you referring to my question, ...

Absolutely not. It was an inarticulate reference to Victor's earlier irrelevant comment. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Quiddity]

Absolutely not. It was an inarticulate reference to Victor's earlier irrelevant comment. Sorry for the confusion.

Which is?

~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yo Victor,

They see the same evidence and yet draw a different conclusion. They mock, and cajole and imply we are but simpletons, and yet it is they who miss the magic of the beauty. They worship the empty god of Science which can never explain WHY we exist and WHY there is beauty. They demand evidence which they are stumbling over and relegate the "spiritual" to either the looney bin or the dust bin.

I agree, it is hard to see the beauty of God's creation and not see God. The spin you need to do this is almost as breath taking as God's creation (but not quite).

 

[Yerda]

They see the same evidence and yet draw a different conclusion. They mock, and cajole and imply we are but simpletons, and yet it is they who miss the magic of the beauty.

Who's they?

They worship the empty god of Science which can never explain WHY we exist and WHY there is beauty.

Why there is beauty? Isn't this what Deut. 32.8 calls reification fallacy? Beauty is a judgment, a value. In what way is beauty anything more than a degree of 'good'?

They demand evidence which they are stumbling over and relegate the "spiritual" to either the looney bin or the dust bin.

How is this any less insulting than your alleged simpleton accusations?

I personally do not know what spiritual is, or what spiritual evidence looks like. I have asked around, but to no avail. It seems to be an ambiguous term often employed to make events appear profound, when it is nothing but ordinary.

 

[Quiddity]

I personally do not know what spiritual is, or what spiritual evidence looks like. I have asked around, but to no avail. It seems to be an ambiguous term often employed to make events appear profound, when it is nothing but ordinary.

What were you expecting with subjective realities? Just curious.

You have to start somewhere.

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

NetDoc--

They see the same evidence and yet draw a different conclusion. They mock, and cajole and imply we are but simpletons, and yet it is they who miss the magic of the beauty.

Am I supposed to be included in this "they"? I don't recall mocking anyone....whom did I mock, and in which post? Please quote it. Also, I don't think I'm missing the magic of the beauty at all.....I'm a person, too, and I too smile when I walk outside and it's bright and sunny out, and find myself staring at the stars at night. Why, just last night I sat out on my porch with my dog and looked at Mars with my binoculars. Mars was the brightest in the night sky last night that it has been or ever will be in a very long time, and I sure as heck didn't want to miss the magic. I hope you didn't miss it either.

They worship the empty god of Science which can never explain WHY we exist and WHY there is beauty.

Can you explain WHY god exists and WHY god does what He does? I'm sure you would readily admit that you can't, and I'm equally sure that it doesn't bother you. Nor does it bother me that science can't explain everything there is to explain in the world. That would kind of take all the fun out of it, anyway.

They demand evidence which they are stumbling over and relegate the "spiritual" to either the looney bin or the dust bin.

I would argue that you do as well, only you make a few notable exceptions when it comes to those "spiritual" things which are convenient for your theology. Lots of things are spiritual, from astrology to voodoo dolls, and I'm willing to bet that, like me, you dismiss the vast majority of spiritual claims, and you demand evidence just as I do.

I agree, it is hard to see the beauty of God's creation and not see God.

It's hard to see the beauty of nature and not see *something*, perhaps, but to assume that this *something* must be YOUR god, and that therefore YOUR god must be obvious to everyone--pagans, Jews, Shintoists, Hindus, etc.--is a bit closed-minded.

The spin you need to do this is almost as breath taking as God's creation (but not quite).

So does this mean you think everyone who does not accept YHWH and the divinity of Christ is "spinning" the issue? I'll bet many pagans, Jews, etc. would have something to say about that....

Perhaps you would like to address the question I posed:

"Is it really comforting to believe that a sentient being "designed" parasitic wasps to eat aphids alive from the inside, bird-eating spiders to inject their victims with flesh-disintigrating venom, saltwater crocodiles to grab and drown baby antelope, heyenas to kill their prey excruciatingly slowly?"